Hours before President Donald Trump's revised travel ban was to take effect, opponents renewed their legal challenges Wednesday, asking judges in three states to block the executive order that targets people from six predominantly Muslim countries.

More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban. Hearings were scheduled Wednesday in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii.

Advertisement

Related Content

A federal judge in Hawaii promised to render a decision later in the day on the state's request for an injunction against the order. U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson heard arguments in the case brought by the state and a Muslim man who said the ban will prevent his Syrian mother-in-law from visiting.

The lawsuit claims the ban harms Hawaii by highlighting the state's dependence on international travelers, its ethnic diversity and its welcoming reputation as the Aloha State.

In Maryland, attorneys told a federal judge that the measure still discriminates against Muslims.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang — who was appointed by former President Barack Obama — said he would try to rule before the end of the day, but he made no promises that his ruling would apply nationwide or address the executive order in its entirety.

Government attorneys argued that the ban, which was to go into effect just after midnight, was revised substantially to address legal concerns, including the removal of an exemption for religious minorities from the affected countries.

"It doesn't say anything about religion. It doesn't draw any religious distinctions," said Jeffrey Wall, who argued for the Justice Department.

Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups said that Trump's statements on the campaign trail and statements from his advisers since he took office make clear that the intent of the ban is to ban Muslims. Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller has said the revised order was designed to have "the same basic policy outcome" as the first.

The new version of the ban details more of a national security rationale. It is narrower and eases some concerns about violating the due-process rights of travelers.

It applies only to new visas from Somalia, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program. It does not apply to travelers who already have visas.

"Generally, courts defer on national security to the government," Chuang said. "Do I need to conclude that the national security purpose is a sham and false?"

In response, ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat pointed to Miller's statement and said the government had put out misleading and contradictory information about whether banning travel from six specific countries would make the nation safer.

The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it's against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.

In the Hawaii case, the federal government says there's no need to issue an emergency restraining order because Hawaii officials have said cited little specific evidence of how the state would be harmed. Justice Department lawyers also say the president is authorized to restrict or suspend entry into the United States.

Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General challenged Hawaii's claim that the order violates due-process rights of Ismail Elshikh as a U.S. citizen who wants his mother-in-law to visit his family from Syria. He says courts have not extended due-process rights outside of a spousal relationship.

Wall told the judge that if he is inclined to issue an injunction, it should be tailored specifically to Hawaii and not nationwide.

In Washington state, U.S. District Judge James Robart — who halted the original ban last month — will consider arguments in a lawsuit brought by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which is making arguments similar to the ACLU's in the Maryland case.

Robart also is overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state. Attorney General Bob Ferguson argues that the new order harms residents, universities and businesses, especially tech companies such as Washington state-based Microsoft and Amazon, which rely on foreign workers. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Oregon have joined the claim.

Washington and Hawaii say the order also violates the First Amendment, which bars the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion. On that point, they say, the new ban is no different than the old.

The states' First Amendment claim has not been resolved. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the original ban but did not rule on the discrimination claim.

Some legal scholars have said the order does not apply to all Muslims or even all predominantly Muslim nations — a point 9th Circuit Judge Richard Clifton made during arguments in Washington's case.